If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

What Arguments are there AGAINST Gay Marriage?

So I'm currently writing an essay for my political science class about the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. So far, I'm citing evidence from the fourteenth amendment (equality), the fourth amendment (right to privacy), the Supreme Court's ruling on California's Prop 8, and the Federal Appeals Court in Massachusetts' ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act. Now I'm trying to find counter arguments to my points and I can't find any that don't relate to religious beliefs. Are there any? And if there aren't, can someone explain to me why the hell same-sex marriage hasn't been legalized yet?!?!

It is absolutely absurd these religious idiots are allowed enforce this horrible law when they are such hypocrites, they don't listen to the other things the bible says is wrong. Disgusting how someone could be against gay marriage, it does not harm ANYONE. Let people be happy and in love.

well, as I understand the argument in some states, the civil unions laws provide ALL the same benefits of legality that are available to married couples, so then the question was why cant the LGBT crowd be happy with that?

Ultimately it was an attempt at a seperate but equal kinda thing...also, Im pretty sure the idea of "marriage" as we interpret it is founded in Bilblical reference.
although ancient cultures had union ceremonies, we are talking specifically about marriage(hence the civil union not being "good" enough)
so, you cant seperate religion from the idea of "marriage".
Just as you cant be a Godparent without being catholic.
so If i were HAVING to present an argument for the other side of the debate, i would focus on thoase two points.
Civil Unions are for all intents and purposes in many states the same as marriage, and marriage itself is based in religious doctrine and as such you muyst follow the guidlines of that doctrine.
You cant be a boy scout just by putting on one of their Unis.
BTW, stop asking us to do your homework for you(lol).

This is a tough one to argue... If you have to the best arguments I have heard (though I don't agree) is that the purpose of marriage is not to declare love for one another, but is actually a contract for the creation of children. Gay couples cannot create children. This is the only one I have seen that is even remotely plausible. If you use Kant's categorical imperative gay marriage would fall apart at the universalisation question. ( I think if I am remembering my Kant properly... It's been a long time since freshmen year)

Everything else stems out of "tradition" or "definition" which is in fact silly as the "tradition" and "definition" of marriage has changed countless times. You would have to go to someone else.

Originally Posted by MrPoon

man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

I'm fine with gay unions. I personally don't care either way if you call it unions or marriages as long as it's the same thing. Of course I like to take it a step further and say oh the religious coined the term marriage, then call people like myself who didn't get married in a church or by a minister or priest a union as well, and i'm ok with that.

I'm fine with gay unions. I personally don't care either way if you call it unions or marriages as long as it's the same thing. Of course I like to take it a step further and say oh the religious coined the term marriage, then call people like myself who didn't get married in a church or by a minister or priest a union as well, and i'm ok with that.

I don't really like the wording of the poll though.

I don't like the wording of he poll either... Though it pretty accurately reflects my feelings on the matter.

Originally Posted by MrPoon

man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

Being that it's Church vs State in this case, I believe the State should have the ruling on this one.

If whatever law that needs to get passed, passes, then it will be legal. If not, then no.
People can be for or against it, but it's all up to the government in charge. It's already legal in many countries, and if your country doesn't believe in it, tough luck, or give it more time.

And by the way, those pants, they belong to my dad.And they're not really pants,
they're Lederhosen

A married couple get tax benefits because the purpose of being married, at least from a state's point of view, is to ensure that the population grows and new little tax payers are born.
Gay couples obviously can't reproduce in the old fashioned way. So you would be giving out tax benefits without getting a "return".
Other countries in europe(like Germany) have tried to solve the issue this way:
They created a same-sex union that offers the same benefits and obligations outside of the tax beneftis.
This is the only reasonable argument. If you bring god into a political debate, you could as well go to Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia.

In re: to civil unions Vs marriage, I have heard the argument was that forming a seperate but equal dynamic by the nature of the effort alone makes it unequal ,or "less than"in the same way that the segregated souths efforts were denounced by those who had to live by them.

To me, every argument against gay marriage each have a weak foundation.

Even if you go with the purpose of getting married is to procreate(which I think is probably the best out of the bunch for an argument against it), then what about all these straight married couples who do not have children?

but in the end, the basis of the most opposition to gay marriage stems from the topic which shall not be named on PSD.